For those of you still wondering how the Obama era could turn the country so left so fast, it’s time to stop your analysis. The answer is reflected in our daily headlines: Obama progressives will do or say anything to secure their agenda.
Truth be told, circa 2009 some of you generously gave our new progressive president partial credit for high (albeit misplaced) principles. Alas, the rose colored glasses should have been put away years ago; your willingness to act as a good faith opponent has simply been “OBF” (“Overtaken By Facts”).
Recall the significant number of experts who foresaw the suspicious fiscal projections accompanying the “Affordable Care Act”, aka “Obamacare.” Recall as well the aggressive defenses offered by the president and his acolytes—all so ready, willing, and able to impute the worst of motivations to those who saw through the negligently crafted, 2,700+ page monstrosity.
Now compare this Alinsky-ite modus operandi with WHAT WE KNOW NOW, ie, the cynical manipulations contributed by Obamacare’s chief architect—professor Jonathan Gruber. For those with short-term memory issues, recall these gratuitous quotations:
“This bill is written in a tortured way to insure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes … if CBO scores the bill as taxes, it dies.”
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”
“Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
That these and related admissions embarrassed the administration (at least in the short-term) is beyond question. Even Gruber attempted to walk back his words in the face of significant backlash, but to little avail. The damage was done; Obamacare was the law of the land. Deal with it.
Five years later, daily headlines bring constant reminders of what the not-so-honest professor and his enablers have brought: Higher premiums and deductibles; fewer consumer options; significant insurer losses suffered on ACA exchanges; “The Little Sisters of the Poor” steamrolled by the federal government over an overreaching contraceptive mandate; more than half of Obamacare’s nonprofit co-ops in bankruptcy; and drastically lower participation rates on exchange plans — far below budget analysts’ projections.
Lack of transparency indeed.
Our next “truth be damned” episode concerns the anti-Mohammed video narrative supplied by the Obama administration in the aftermath of the Benghazi fiasco. Said storyline began with National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s serial misrepresentations on five Sunday news shows:
“… what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to … the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.”
Then-Secretary of State Clinton’s now infamous apology to the Muslim world for the video (that nobody saw) followed this misleading line. That Clinton thought it appropriate to convey the same talking points to the parents of slain American hero Ty Woods reflects the same Alinsky-ite tactic – do whatever it takes to get over – just survive – because the (progressive) ends will always justify the political means.
Now fast forward to a few weeks ago, and another bombshell from the Obama hierarchy. This time an admission from one of the president’s closest advisers on the Iranian nuclear deal — a highly criticized agreement with the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism.
The story’s antagonist is national security “expert” (and author) Ben Rhodes – supposedly Mr. Obama’s alter ego. It appears Rhodes invented a narrative regarding the alleged moderation of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani – solely in order to cover up Obama’s early entreaties to the Iranian mullahs.
Here, such manipulation appears to be a source of great pride for Rhodes:
“The average reporter we talked to is 27 years old, and the only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns … they literally know nothing.”
“[C]lueless reporters were saying things that validated what we (the administration) had given them to say.”
And so a misleading narrative in support of a newly branded Iranian moderation was sold to friendly “force multipliers” – analysts from academia and the media — who were utilized anytime the media got close to the truth.
In this context, you might ask how many more times the Obama/Rhodes team can trot out the now so familiar mantra: “It’s either this deal…OR THERE WILL BE WAR!” The answer appears to be forever — or at least until Jan. 20, 2017 — a date that can’t arrive soon enough.
The final tallies on three vitally important policy initiatives from the Obama era:
Three thoroughly discredited narratives;
Three embarrassed Obama henchmen seeking to “clarify” their original statements; and
Three continuing disasters for the good ole USA.
My grandmother always told me “bad things come in threes.” Now I believe her.
Gov. Robert Ehrlich is a Washington Examiner columnist, partner at King & Spalding and author of three books, including the recently released Turning Point. He was governor of Maryland from 2003 – 2007.
